Wood Creek walleye

[SSKY]

I really just want to learn, I do not see how stocking a river strain native walleye in to a small impoundment with little to no flow will prove anything. I do not think that native smallmouths would do any good there as they as they would at lake linville at Mount vernon with the structure that is there with no flow. It would seem that if you wished to pick a lake for an experiment laurel would be the one to choose instead of a creek pond. Or even better, try it where they came from and see what happens, Why not try?? It has not been tried for a long time and the old reasons are OLD and continue to be OLD. Stock the native strain with todays knowledge in the lakes where they came from and then if they fail to deliver, If stocked like stripers, then so be it,If they can't live in the lake as they have proven that they can.

[birdstrike]

Wood creek feeds into the Rockcastle, which as we all know is where the strain presently still exists. If you are going to stock walleye into Wood Creek, you would certainly want to stock the Rockcastle strain or take the chance of hybridizing the final hold out of the pure southern strain. In that respect, keep stocking Rockcastle walleye in WCL. Will they grow and reproduce as well as the same fish might in C-land? Of course not, but I think our Fish and Wildlife folks know that.

Now then for Cumberland... a fish and wildlife study showed that the strength of a year class of stocking is quite obvious two years after that stocking. That in fact the average fish captured in the spawning areas is a 17 inch 2 year old fish. So, why not spend a couple of years stocking nothing but the Southern Strain walleye in Cumberland and see what we get? It would be a good estimate of their survivability and growth rate. One problem is that genetic studies are needed to tell the fish apart and I imagine that is quite expensive for the state. So that opens a whole can of worms- how to tell, without tagging, which walleye would be the newly stocked Southern stain and which were naturally spawned from the Erie Strain. Anyway, it would be a good start, and maybe we'll see that soon.

I think Fish and Wildlife are heading in the right direction with this. And I actually admire their patience with this matter. They have isolated a control group of fish for study. They may not be ready to produce half a million fingerlings a year yet. Remember the hatcheries have lost an entire year's worth of fish due to disease in the past. I'm ready for the re-introduction of the southern strain too, but for now, why not spend a little time doing some research before dumping fish in the lake. That's your point, isn't it? That the state started stocking the Erie strain based on assumptions, theory, and availability, without fully understanding the consequences?

Resectfully, Steve

[SSKY]

Good post Steve, I would also like to see the results of that. It is what I am waiting for. We have not given the southern strain a true chance yet on Cumberland. The state tried to do it in the early years to establish a hatchery with the native fish but they did not have the technology to do it. I would think that by now we can figure it out, which I know we can. There is no need to let our kentucky native fish to go by the wayside if we can do it just because it is easier. If it can be done we will all benefit from it Down the road. Sorry if I offend those that disagree, but I will stick with the fish that came from here to do better as they were made here.

[JoeB]

Please tell me about the technology that was lacking in that early hatchery. Tell me how today's hatchery would produce a heartier fingerling.

[SSKY]

If I am not mistaken that article was in Ky afield about the hatchery that was tried in the early years of the lake to propagate and stock the river strain walleye. Tell me if i am wrong. I Know that our biologists have much more info than then and would know better methods of doing so than at that time.

[JoeB]

I'm asking about your statement. You said that the early hatchery at Blue Heron didn't have the "technology" to produce native strain walleye. What "technology" are you refering to??? Since their only egg and milt source was from the native fish, I think it's safe to assume that they produced 100%, blue blood native walleye. Those fish didn't work. The walleye fishery floundered and went to hell in a handbag. Now, please tell me about the new space age technology you've refered to that would change that? What is taking place in our hatcheries today that is so vastly different from how those fingerlings were produced? If you dump a bunch of native fingerlings into Cumberland today, wont you end up the same thing we have now? Or are you suggesting that all the walleye in the lake be eradicated and start from scratch??

[SSKY]

Greers ferry lake Ark, where do the fish that they stock there come from? Why do they do that stupid stuff? i understand the point of having a numbers fishery. Then, so would you be in support of stopping the liberal limit on Ky bass as they seem to do much better in the lake setting compared to largemouths and we can have a spot fishery. Hybrid striped bass will survive much better than the true stripers even after release, and we could have a plenty, the large gizzard shad problem is gone and with plenty of hybrids there would be none. Would you support stocking only hybrids in lake cumberland as it would be cheaper and there would be more fish, Only the size of the fish would decrease, and the stocked fish would do much better.

[JoeB]

That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

[SSKY]

Why?

[JoeB]

Well let's see. Largemouth bass are not adaptive to lake environments???? Hybrids would do much better in Cumb. than stripers??? Hybrids eliminate gizzard shad from a lake???? Hybrids are cheaper than stripers??? Where do you get this stuff? BTW, those big walleye haven't been caught from Greers Ferry in almost 20 years.

[SSKY]

Joe B thanks for biting on the stupid stuff. I did not say that largemouth bass do not adapt to a lake environment that would be stupid, only that is seems the ky bass is more prolific in the setting of lake cumberland as they seem to very well and prosper and then the state wants to limit their numbers. The reason is that they are small bass and people do not want them.So if your argument is for a fish that does better in the lake then you would be a spot guy. Greers ferry,Yes there have been no monsters caught out of that lake in the past few years but they have the genetic potential to do so and they might do it again,Tell me that could not happen again. I believe that their walleye fishery is equal or better than ours for larger walleye. Granted there have been no 20 pounders, but that has never happened on Lake erie,ever.

[SSKY]

The rest of us would like your knowledge and insight, Joe B, as I am dumb.Sorry for the dumb post for the rest of you guys, hate to waste your time.